CRAWLEY councillors have voted to oppose a second runway being built at Gatwick Airport – despite surveys suggesting more of the town’s residents wanted them to support expansion than object to it.

At an extraordinary meeting of the full borough council on Monday evening, councillors ignored the findings of separate polls carried out by the Crawley News and YouGov.

Both found that a far higher percentage of Crawley residents are in favour of a second runway than are opposed. In a free vote, whereby councillors were allowed to vote however they chose and not along party lines, 25 voted against a second runway being built, while only 11 voted in favour.

The remaining councillor, Liam Marshall-Ascough, boycotted the meeting, saying he thought there should have been a public referendum on the issue.

Last week a Crawley News survey of 1,000 people from the town revealed that more people in every single neighbourhood in Crawley backed a second runway than were opposed to the idea.

Overall 49.3 per cent were in favour, 23.2 per cent were opposed and 27.5 per cent were undecided.

Two separate YouGov polls, commissioned by Gatwick Airport Limited in September and November, found that 54 and 55 per cent of Crawley residents respectively were in favour of a second runway at Gatwick rather than Heathrow when asked.

The polls found that 37 per cent of those asked in September supported Heathrow expansion, while the figure fell to 33 per cent in November.

Undecided

Nine per cent were undecided in September and in November 12 per cent had not made up their mind.

While anti-expansion campaigners have questioned the validity of these YouGov surveys, based on the fact that only 101 people were interviewed on each occasion, Crawley Borough Council has not carried out any survey of its own to gauge public opinion.

And there is yet to be an independent poll which has shown more people in Crawley to be opposed to a second Gatwick runway than in favour.

Speaking after the meeting, Jeremy Taylor, chief executive of Gatwick Diamond Business, said he was “disappointed but not surprised” by the result.

He added: “Being cynical and very blunt, I believe a lot of councillors voted to oppose a second runway because, firstly, there is an election coming up and some of them are in a precarious position. “Secondly, they wanted a quiet life. A lot of people making the noise are a minority, but they are very vocal.

“If we were successful in getting this second runway those councillors who opposed it could say ‘it’s not my fault’ while if it doesn’t go to Gatwick, they can say ‘look how influential I am’.”

Conservative councillor for Maidenbower Lenny Walker, who supported a second runway, told members at the meeting they were not representing their constituents’ views because they had not pro-actively asked enough residents for their opinions.

Instead, he said, they were voting based on their own views.

Some councillors, including Labour ’s Langley Green councillor Brenda Smith said they had received far more e-mails from people opposed to a second runway than in favour of it. But fellow Labour Langley Green councillor Stephen Joyce questioned how members could base their decision on e-mails, pointing out that people were unlikely to contact their local councillor if they were happy with something.

Labour ’s Raj Sharma, who represents Southgate, said he personally opposed a second runway, but had been approached by a large number of people from the black and ethnic minority community who said they supported it, so
he voted in favour.

Anti-expansion campaigners declared Monday’s vote a victory and called on the Airports Commission – which will make its recommendation on where a new runway should be built to the Government in the summer – to take note of the growing number of councils now opposed to growth at Gatwick.

Derek Meakings, from the One’s Enough campaign, said that if the Airports Commission recommends Gatwick as its preferred option, campaigners would become even more vociferous. The resident of St Catherine’s Road, Pound Hill, said: “They (the Government and Airports Commission) should be under no illusion that if they [opt] for Gatwick there will be massive opposition.

There will be picket lines, lobbying of MPs, and lots of very well-known and wealthy people that will be under the proposed flightpaths will bring a lot of money forward to fight against it.”

West Sussex County Council voted to oppose a second runway at Gatwick this week, 18 months after agreeing to support expansion’in principle’.

After approving its draft response to the Airports Commission, councillors voted against the authority’s leadership by a margin of 37 to 26, in favour of a motion expressing ‘its opposition to a new runway to expand Gatwick Airport’.

Conservative Cllr Peter Griffiths put forward the motion as an amendment to one tabled by Tory Cllr Bill Acraman at the Full Council meeting at Horsham’s County Hall North on Monday, 18 months after the county council voted to support a second runway ‘in principle’, subject to environmental considerations.

Cllr Griffiths (Con, Hurstpierpoint & Bolney) questioned the area’s ability to cope with the amount of new homes needed if Gatwick was selected for expansion.

He added: “The business case does not stack up. There are no community benefits clearly defined.”

Cllr Liz Bennett (Con, East Grinstead Meridian) described the idea of putting a second runway at Gatwick as ‘barmy’.

Cllr Mike Glennon (Ukip, Lancing) asked why the county council had not produced detailed road infrastructure implications and costs if a second runway were approved, and warned that WSCC’s leadership risked ‘sleep walking naked and unarmed towards a sociological and environmental debacle’.

Cllr Peter Lamb (Lab, Northgate & Three Bridges), also leader of Crawley Borough Council,.argued for the county council to’adopt a neutral position’.

Many spoke in support of a second runway as a vehicle for growth in West Sussex, and its potential to bring skilled jobs to the area,especially for young people. Others felt it was not the right time to vote either way as it could affect their ability to negotiate mitigation measures if a second runway were recommended as the preferred option to central Government by the Airports Commission.

Cllr Sue Mullins (Lab, Gossops Green & Ifield East) disagreed, arguing that voting to oppose Gatwick would not stop them negotiating with anyone and ‘gives us a better bargaining position’.

Cllr Brenda Smith (Lab, Langley Green & West Green) added: “I think we owe the residents of West Sussex a straight answer as elected members as to how we feel.’

Campaigners opposed to expansion at Gatwick have hailed the county council’s vote not to support a second runway as “a victory for common sense”.

Members of the Gatwick Area Conservation Campaign (GACC) have been appealing for residents to take part in the Airports Commission consultation as they battle to defeat proposals to expand the airport.

They were overjoyed when councillors voted at a Full Council meeting on Monday (January 19) not to throw their support behind Gatwick’s bid.

Speaking after the meeting, GACC chairman Brendon Sewill said: “We are delighted by the result today as it clearly illustrates to the Airports Commission that residents do not support a second runway and nor does its council in a 37 to 26 vote by councillors today to oppose the expansion.”

GACC’s joy was not shared by Gatwick.

A spokesman said: “While obviously disappointed at this decision, we will continue to work closely with West Sussex County Council to illustrate the benefits –both economic and social – that expansion will deliver for years to come.

“Gatwick is doing as much as possible to reduce the impact of aircraft noise on local residents. If chosen for expansion, we will work with local authorities to maximise the benefit and minimise, mitigate against, or compensate for, of a second runway.”

GACC members had been hard at work over the weekend, erecting banners at points along what would become the boundary of Gatwick should approval be given for a second runway.

A spokesman said the idea was to show residents how much land the expanded airport would swallow up.

The banners were placed at: the junction of Ifield Road and Bonnetts Lane – chosen to show the boundary would be 100 yards from the northern edge of Crawley;

The Fleming Way roundabout on the A23 – to highlight the 286 business premises which would be demolished;

The roundabout near City Place – to highlight the offices, including Nestle’s HQ, which would be demolished;

Antlands Lane crosses the M23 and Lowfield Heath Road, Charlwood – to highlight the changes to the road network expansion would bring.

Mr Sewill said: “These notices will bring home to people that what is proposed is a whole new airport very close to the residential areas on the north of Crawley, especially Langley Green and Ifield.”

Crawley Borough Council will vote on whether to support a new runway on January 26.

Responses to the Airports Commission consultation need to be made by February 3. Log on to www.gov.uk and search for Airports Commission for details.

Anti-expansion campaigners errect a number of banners telling people where the airport boundary would reach if a second runway was built SUS-150119-122432001

Crawley Borough Council has been told to get off the fence and vote ‘yes’ or ‘no’ on the building of a second runway at Gatwick.

Members of the council’s Overview and Scrutiny Commission met at the town hall on Monday (January 12) to discuss the council’s response to the Airports Commission’s (AC) consultation on expansion.

The commission, which is made up of councillors from both Labour and the Conservatives, also expressed concerns about some of the information being used by the AC as it prepared to make its recommendation to the Government in July.

Regarding the issue of speaking in favour of, or against, a second runway, Cllr Ian Irvine (Lab, Broadfield North) said: “My view is, at this moment, what people in Crawley who are interested want to hear is their elected representatives taking a view.

“Not having an opinion and sitting on the fence won’t do any good for anybody.”

Cllr Howard Bloom (Con, Pound Hill South & Worth) was one of several councillors who informed the meeting he had received little or no correspondence from people in favour of expansion, but plenty of opposition.

He added: “It’s very difficult to remain neutral at this stage. The feedback we get must be communicated back to the council.”

Cllr Bloom warned the council would “miss the boat” if it didn’t take the opportunity to air its views.

He was backed by Cllr Brenda Smith (Lab, Langley Green) who said: “We are here to represent the people who elected us. If we haven’t got the ability to make the decision for ourselves, then we shouldn’t be doing the job.”

The council has until February 3 to submit its response to the Airports Commission’s consultation.

Both councillors and officers raised concerns about the accuracy of some of the information in the consultation documents.

Among the concerns were the figures being used to represent the town’s unemployment rate, which the meeting was told were wrong; the accuracy of the impact of expansion on the local area; and incorrect assumptions about housing growth.

A report put before the meeting also highlighted “questionable” conclusions about housing density and the “unrealistic assumption” housing growth would be spread equally over the 14 authorities surrounding the airport.

Cllr Karen Sudan (Lab, West Green) said there were “some glaring contradictions” in the consultation documents.

Cllr Bill Ward (Lab, West Green), chairing the meeting, said: “If we look at all the social and economic issues across the town, the AC work does not add up. It’s almost unbelievable that you have had a consultation that’s been sitting for so long and most of their data is hogwash.”

While no councillor was called on to officially say whether they supported expansion, Cllr Ward made his concerns and feelings clear.

He said: “Crawley will be just a reserve army of labour for the airport. It will become a suburb of Gatwick.”

The views of the OSC will be shared at a meeting of the Cabinet on Wednesday (January 14) before a full debate is held at a Special Council Meeting on Monday January 26.

Both meetings will be held at the town hall and will start at 7.30pm. Members of the public are welcome to attend.

Runway Facts A summary of the headline reasons why a new runway would be a disaster.

Say NO leaflet Please print copies of this leaflet and put them on notice boards in your area. And distribute copies to your neighbours. If you need a large number of leaflets you may like to collect paper copies from the GACC office – contact us at gacc@btconnect.com

2nd Runway at Gatwick will be Bad for Business
from the Gatwick Area Conservation Campaign
4th January 2015

Dear Sir/Madam

You may like to see the information below, Bad for Business. It sets out reasons for believing that a second runway at Gatwick might well be disadvantageous to many local firms. This is rather different to the impression given by the various business associations, which tend to represent the larger firms.

We are planning to send you, at the beginning of January, a detailed briefing paper, Gatwick Unwrapped, on the proposals for a new runway. Also advice on how to respond to the Airports Commission consultation, together with a leaflet which we hope you may be able to distribute.

It is good news that Kent County Council have withdrawn their support for a second Gatwick runway, and are now opposed. West Sussex County Council is due to take its decision on 19 January. Please put that date in your diary – you may wish to come and make your views known.

At the request of some of the new local groups, we are undertaking a small survey on aircraft noise and new flight paths. Please help us by completing the survey at www.surveymonkey.com And please forward it to your friends or neighbours, and to members of your group.